Grover Norquist Continues To Make One Big Error On Economicshttp://www.businessinsider.com/grover-norquists-big-error-thinking-taxes-enable-spending-2012-11/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:08:36 -0500Joe Weisenthalhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b636c66bb3f75b6600000aDon KinkaidWed, 28 Nov 2012 11:07:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b636c66bb3f75b6600000a
You can't be he worlds police force, have a couple of wars on the credit card and have low taxes.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5593c69bedda334000023Jungle JimTue, 27 Nov 2012 19:22:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5593c69bedda334000023
You may be right, but I remain skeptical. He has never stuck me as being slow, yet he steadfastly refuses to learn from experience. He champions tax cuts yet remains silent on the rapid expansion of the public debt. That is either a very mixed message or a very clear one.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b53fe469beddf777000009ibsteve2uTue, 27 Nov 2012 17:34:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b53fe469beddf777000009
The most criminal economic act ever committed was Republican: The passage and signing of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) when the invasion of Iraq (19 March – 1 May 2003) had been planned - and planned AS unfunded - all along.
It was the equivalent of quitting your job and then going on vacation to Vegas using the business card of the job you just quit.
It was planned to throw the United States of America into deficit spending - into massive debt - and thus make entitlement spending vulnerable to the assault it is under now. It was massive fraud and malfeasance in office. It was nothing but economic terrorism. IMHO.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b52d9469bedde846000005neo KTue, 27 Nov 2012 16:16:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b52d9469bedde846000005
If Grover is the emperor then Speaker Boehner is Darth Vaderhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b50c376bb3f7a12b000009badbobTue, 27 Nov 2012 13:53:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b50c376bb3f7a12b000009
That's a silly comment. There will always be a "tax" If not from a legitimate government, then from the guy with the most guns, like in Somalia. Are you and Grover saying that you would prefer to have America folow in the footsteps of Somalia? Somalia is the textbook example of unfettered capitalism.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b50a8c6bb3f7772700001arickf82Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:46:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b50a8c6bb3f7772700001a
I understand what you mean, but I believe Grover is sincere in his ideals. Although but he's certainly misleading in his message, which oddly enough, he's a bit upfront about.
He'll give speeches and discuss the value of "branding" for politics, which demonstrates that his primary concern isn't immediately abstract ideals but winning. If one can't get elected, one can't implement your principles. To that end, tax cuts are highly marketable, entitlement cuts (the third rail) are not. He's really advocating eliminating government services, it's just not an electable message.
Similarly, Grover's libertarian take a back seat. He's in favor of marriage equality. And his defense of American Muslims put him at odds with other conservatives, such as the major blow out with Frank Gaffney, Norquist's former suite-mate.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5071ceab8ea551d000013Andrew ReiTue, 27 Nov 2012 13:31:56 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5071ceab8ea551d000013
I'm hereby changing Norquist's nickname from "Darth Vader" to "Emperor Palpatine". Star Wars fans will see why the Emperor nickname is more fitting.
Regarding tax cuts not reducing the size of government: that's a scurrilous lie! A smaller government is EXACTLY what the Emperor wants! I've written about this recently: His Highness is a "Starve the Beast" enthusiast....back around 1970, GOP Conservatives and captains of industry got together and came up with a plan that has no better description than an act of treason: cut taxes to nil or practically nil to shrink the size of "The Beast", which is the federal government. Once you reduce the size of government to very small, His Highness has said that he'd "drown it in a bathtub". Then, the Fascist Corporate Plutarchy takes over...a government pretty much run by corporations, the wealthy and a very small group of people who make ALL the decisions. That's advocating for the overthrow of the government and treason. "Starve the Beast" is the reason behind His Highness' "pledge" to vote to not raise taxes. I'm not sure why the Justice Department hasn't figured this out and arrested His Majesty and all of those who signed his pledge, but that's our government for ya. :( ssmdhhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5021f6bb3f73718000010Jungle JimTue, 27 Nov 2012 13:10:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b5021f6bb3f73718000010
The problem here is that everyone is giving Grover Norquist the benefit of the doubt and assuming he is sincere in his arguments. I don't believe he is. He represents a lobbying effort mounted by the wealthy to protect their wealth. Neither Mr. Norquist nor his backers give a tinker’s damn about right or wrong. They just don't want to pay, period.
Any serious examination of their arguments shows that they are specious. The wealthy hoard their funds, they are not job creators at all, and if Mitt Romney is any example, they are job destroyers. Moreover, since Reagan's time the mantra has been to cut taxes, and we did. Did government get smaller,? It did like hell.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ff6669bedd084f00000cVaferTue, 27 Nov 2012 12:59:02 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ff6669bedd084f00000c
Norquist is an ideological idiot and history will write him down as having helped bring down this country with his ridiculous doctrine that weak GOP sheep signed. A doctrine which offered no means of compromise and collaboration, thus helping to polarize this country to gridlock.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4fae8eab8ea5106000003theanphibianTue, 27 Nov 2012 12:39:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4fae8eab8ea5106000003
Proving that the government will go to any lengths to pay itself topples his argument. If the government will keep spending even if you lower taxes, then you shouldn't start by lowering taxes.
This fake-out of lowering taxes and not reducing spending increases the debt, which in turn, increases the impact government has on the economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4f2dcecad04a51c000007rickf82Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:05:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4f2dcecad04a51c000007
A couple of things. First, Grover believes in the Laffer curve. Regardless of spending, he believes in the short term tax cuts will increase revenues. Despite this bounce, Grover would still keep cutting taxes until revenue begins to decrease...
As for spending, yes that has kept going up. But Grover is betting it will hit critical points (such as last summer) when government spending must be cut or a default occurs. Might that be bad for the economy? Yes, but then we'd get a leaner government (and to Grover that means more freedom from tyranny) and eventually the economy would recover.
Grover promotes tax cuts as opposed to spending cuts (he does advocate both) because spending cuts touch upon the third-rail (entitlements) or the GOP bread-and-butter (the military). Tax cuts are the easier selling point.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4f2406bb3f76d7500000bRoryBellowsTue, 27 Nov 2012 12:02:56 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4f2406bb3f76d7500000b
It works out great for everyone! The lowest taxes in generations, great public services, a military in almost every country in the world. But if it's the debt you care about, lower taxes ain't getting it done. That's why no one actually cares about the debt and the size of government. They say they do, but all they really care about is lower taxes. Raise taxes, and spending will come down, lower taxes and spending will go up. It's not only common sense based on human behavior, but we have real world proof in the past 32 years.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ef866bb3f77275000005karl KochTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:51:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ef866bb3f77275000005
It's worked out GREAT for me. I'm paying less in taxes!! If you want voters to associate their taxes to their demand for government freebies, we must increase the number of taxpayers. Get rid of deductions many deductionshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ef0beab8ea386500000fjohn1066Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:49:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ef0beab8ea386500000f
The biggest problem with Grover's idea is it does not point to where the spending cuts should happen. In his simple mind cutting government's income will lead to smaller government.
See one could cut the biggest power the government has and it would meet Grover's idea, the Rule of Law. That would be removing all law makers, police, judges, jails etc. Nothing in what he says stops that.
Really his plan is just childish. If cuts happen they have to be aimed. It cannot be a shotgun approach that Grover's idea does.
The spending cuts can be totally wrong. That's why his plan will never work.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ee8aecad04e11300000akarl KochTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:47:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ee8aecad04e11300000a
Hey Bozo, I mean Bossu. People advocating for smaller government are not against "new revenues". We are against "raising tax rates". You do realize there is a difference? Right, Bozo?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ed1feab8ea1e62000009JohnBTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:41:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ed1feab8ea1e62000009
The argument was that cutting tax revenue will reduce government spending, and it's wrong.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ecd5ecad048b0f000006BossuTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:39:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ecd5ecad048b0f000006
You Grover and the rest of the right wing nut jobs just don't get it there's nothing wrong with advocating smaller government and spending cuts, but what about the $16 trillion debt we have? how the hell are we supposed to pay it down without any new revenues? Think about that for a second.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4eca36bb3f7ef6e000007RoryBellowsTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:38:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4eca36bb3f7ef6e000007
And how's that working out for you over the past 32 years? The problem is that voters will never associate their taxes with their government services unless their is a connection made. Supply siders severed that relationship in the 80's and we've never looked back. Starve the Beast is one of the most counter productive policies in American history. I'd rank it alongside the Drug War and the Cuban Embargo as accomplishing the EXACT OPPOSITE result of its intention.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ebb469beddca1b000017karl KochTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:35:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4ebb469beddca1b000017
"If his goal is to shrink government, eh should be for raising taxes to pay for everything" Really???? Your statement is not even logical.
The only way to shrink government is to hold tax rates at current levels, and not allow politicians to increase the debt ceiling. Then and only then will they start making the cuts in spending that need to be made.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4eab569bedd2e1c000003Charlie M.Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:30:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4eab569bedd2e1c000003
We went over the cliff when Obama won a second term.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e9c06bb3f7266800001fRoryBellowsTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:26:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e9c06bb3f7266800001f
Yes it does, he is exactly wrong. If his goal is to shrink government, eh should be for raising taxes to pay for everything. In that case voters would start to be more discernible in what they want and need because they would actually have to pay for it. Grover isn't for smaller government, he's for smaller taxes. There's a huge difference.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e7d4eab8eaf65400000fkarl KochTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:18:28 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e7d4eab8eaf65400000f
The fact politicians continue to spend money they don't have DOES NOT PROVE Norquist is wrong.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e54b6bb3f78b61000009arm50Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:07:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e54b6bb3f78b61000009
a hypo for you, what if there was zero tax revenue? would that "starve the beast"? Of course it would, you don't need induction to reason that just simple deduction.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e4276bb3f7465d00000eRoryBellowsTue, 27 Nov 2012 11:02:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e4276bb3f7465d00000e
"Starve the Beast" is one of the dumbest concepts ever unleashed on American voters. Think of it this way, do people spend more when they use a credit card or if they are forced to use cash?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e37f69bedd0e07000004badbobTue, 27 Nov 2012 10:59:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e37f69bedd0e07000004
Another Grover myth is that the deficit increases have all been the result of increased spending, when the truth, as any one eye'd monkey can see, is that much of the deficit has been caused by a reduction in tax revenue, caused by the unemployment problem of the last four years. We don't get much tax revenue out of unemployed people.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e2f8ecad04257c000009GregTue, 27 Nov 2012 10:57:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e2f8ecad04257c000009
This is maybe the valid point of the decade. Spending cuts shrink government. With the willingness and ability to borrow taxes are no constraint and it is why the GOP has been every bit as bad or worse than the Dems since Reagan on "small government". A big military is as much big government as socialized healthcare.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e271ecad04a879000007badbobTue, 27 Nov 2012 10:55:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50b4e271ecad04a879000007
Grover is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind. Most followers of the right are very comfortable in their "beliefs". Proof of their beliefs has never been their strong suit.